2026-06-16 - LD Mannheim - InterDigital v. Disney et al. - UPC_CFI_490/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_490/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company. et.al.
Kernaussage: The Mannheim Local Division (Tochtermann presiding) held that Disney's Disney+ streaming service infringes InterDigital's EP 2 465 265 (intra-chroma video coding), dismissed Disney's counterclaim for revocation, and rejected Disney's FRAND/competition-law defence.
2026-06-16 - LD Mannheim - InterDigital
v.
Disney et al. - UPC_CFI_490/2025
landmark
The Mannheim Local Division (Tochtermann presiding) held that Disney's Disney+ streaming service infringes InterDigital's EP 2 465 265 (intra-chroma video coding), dismissed Disney's counterclaim for revocation, and rejected Disney's FRAND/competition-law defence. On claim construction the panel treated the patent specification as its own lexicon, reading the para. [0025] definition (the chroma and luma partition-type sets must differ) into the claims as binding, and held that 'multiple partition types supported' denotes the encoder's abstract capability, not alternatives that must remain simultaneously available at the moment of selection. The patent was held novel and inventive over D1-D4: none discloses different luma/chroma partition-type sets together with determination of the chroma type in response to the luma type, and the prior art provides no motivation to deviate from the fixed/identical-partition schemes. Most significantly, the panel rejected the FRAND defence even on the assumption that the encoding claims are (de facto) standard-essential and that Huawei/ZTE applies: Disney was held an unwilling licensee because it invoked an NDA (inserted at its own request) to prevent InterDigital from disclosing and explaining its licence offer, then refused to cooperate in amending the NDA so the full negotiation history could be presented — rendering examination of the offer impossible through conduct attributable to the implementer. The panel also held intangible encoded signals to be 'products' under Art. 25(a) UPCA.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Novelty attack failed; claims 1 and 15 novel over D1 (H.264), D2 (JVT-H018), D3 (Lee) and D4 (Kim). None directly and unambiguously discloses different luma/chroma partition-type sets plus determination of the chroma type in response to the luma type (Art. 54 EPC) [115]-[146].”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Inventive-step attack failed; claims inventive over D2 alone and over D1/D2/D4 combined with D3 (and conversely). The prior art gives no motivation/pointer to use different partition-type sets or to determine the chroma type in response to the luma type (Art. 56 EPC) [147]-[168].”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“Disney's added-matter attack (Art. 138(1)(c)/123(2) EPC) rejected: the single chroma intra-prediction mode per particular partition type is directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed (TW4); literal support not required (CoA Amgen v Sanofi) [108]-[114].”